Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 1 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(1): 55-64 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/01/17 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/17
Received: 2023/01/17 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/17
How to cite this article
Fathi M, Sajjadzadeh H, Moini S. Effect of Physical and Spatial Factors of High-Rise Official Buildings in Karaj City, Iran, on Employee Productivity. GeoRes 2023; 38 (1) :55-64
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1428-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1428-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Architecture, Borujerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Borujerd, Iran
2- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bo Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bo Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (99 Views)
Introduction
The primary objective of workplaces is to provide an environment where employees can perform their tasks in the best possible manner. The same work may yield different outcomes in two distinct contexts; therefore, the work environment must be designed and adapted to promote desirable behaviors. The first step in this process is to identify the key factors that influence productivity in workplaces. Understanding the environmental factors affecting employee productivity requires a thorough understanding of work patterns within office environments. Recent studies have generally classified work patterns into four main categories. This categorization, derived from the comparison of buildings and spatial systems compatible with employees’ work patterns, provides a framework for distinguishing the influence of environmental factors on workers.
Research on the influence of the physical environment on job performance began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s, which examined the effects of lighting on production. In the following decades, studies focused on laboratory-based methods until the 1990s, when attention turned to the diversity and characteristics of work itself. One of the pioneers of this approach was Sundstrom, who organized his studies around five job types: Clerical, machine, mental, control, and dyadic [Andrew, 2008].
At the turn of the 21st century, the trajectory of workplace studies shifted toward understanding the relationship between environment and work patterns. The conceptualization of work patterns in the New Environments for Working research project in the UK [Laing et al., 1998] has continued to shape this field. That study focused on two main parameters, interaction and autonomy, and their relationship with spatial structure. The results indicated that organizations are transitioning from individual, centralized, and independent work modes toward more interactive, creative, and knowledge-based practices with increasingly complex spatial organizations. Consequently, the move from traditional (cellular) office environments to a hybrid of individual workspaces, meeting areas, and shared spaces (public zones) has become necessary [Davis et al., 2011]. This highlights the need for broader studies encompassing both the internal and external spatial structure of buildings. However, earlier research tended to focus on fragmented and isolated parameters and often lacked a clear definition of productivity.
Labor productivity refers to performing specific tasks according to predefined standards efficiently, accurately, and at minimal cost. In other words, human productivity measures the effectiveness and efficiency of an employee or a group of employees [Seyednaghavi et al., 2018:14]. In modern office environments, assessing the influence of environmental factors on employees is a challenging issue, as defining clear inputs and outputs is difficult [Haynes et al., 2017:112]. Although there is no universally accepted method for measuring productivity in office spaces, self-reported productivity measures appear to be the most suitable approach in such contexts [Azizi & Tazikeh Lemski, 2020].
To consolidate previous research findings and provide a comprehensive framework, Haynes and Vischer introduced new concepts based on self-reported productivity assessment through extensive studies and literature review. Haynes conducted a large-scale study on 1,418 British office workers, resulting in 25 indicators grouped under four main parameters: Comfort, motivation, interaction, and concentration. Meanwhile, Vischer proposed the Environmental Comfort Pyramid, consisting of four levels: physical comfort, functional comfort, psychological comfort, and environmental support [Haynes, 2008; Haynes et al., 2017; Vischer, 2008; Vischer & Wifi, 2017].
In Haynes’s model, the comfort level encompasses physical parameters such as ventilation, temperature, lighting, acoustics, cleanliness, safety, and furniture. Among these, four factors of thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, and air quality are generally recognized as the most influential in office worker performance [Choi et al., 2017; Haddadzadegan et al., 2022]. Samani and Rasid have demonstrated that the physical factors most closely associated with workplace creativity include ergonomics and environmental attributes such as noise, ventilation, the presence of plants, and windows [Samani & Rasid, 2014].
Regarding lighting, Golmohammadi et al. and Ghanbaran et al. have identified insufficient lighting sources and reliance on fluorescent lamps as key contributors to poor lighting quality. They suggested improving environmental quality by considering natural light, views, and visual access [Ghanbaran et al., 2018; Golmohammadi et al., 2020]. In recent years, research has emphasized the necessity of natural ventilation adapted to the climatic conditions of each region to enhance employee performance [Barbadilla-Martín et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017; Vakilinezhad & Shaeri, 2020]. Continuous exposure to noise disrupts cognitive performance; thus, acoustic conditions significantly affect employee productivity [Singh et al., 2010].
At a higher (functional) level, research has primarily focused on the comparison between open-plan and enclosed office layouts from various perspectives. For instance, Shahzad et al. found that enclosed offices, with greater user control, offered 35% higher satisfaction and 20% greater comfort compared to open-plan offices with limited control [Shahzad et al., 2017]. Seddigh et al. have shown in Sweden that office size correlates with layout configuration, with larger open-plan offices associated with greater performance decline compared to smaller ones [Seddigh et al., 2015]. While these studies have explored the strengths and weaknesses of different layouts, few have examined the spatial configuration of office environments independent of the open/closed plan dichotomy.
In addition to the factors identified by Haynes, other components influence workplace performance, such as greenery, views, urban location, and spatial configuration, which were not addressed in his model. For example, it is now well established that the presence of plants and green spaces is positively correlated with reduced stress, increased productivity, and greater employee satisfaction [Gray & Birrell, 2014]. Similarly, having outdoor views, particularly of natural settings, has positive effects [Allan et al., 2014]. The internal spatial configuration of buildings can also enhance employee productivity [Nubani, 2018; Permana et al., 2021], while urban location and accessibility likewise play a significant role [Al Horr et al., 2016].
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of spatial configuration in high-rise office buildings in Karaj, at both internal and external scales, on employee productivity, and to compare these effects with the physical factors identified in Haynes’s model.
Methodology
This descriptive study was conducted in the city of Karaj during the summer and autumn of 2022. To ensure a comprehensive examination of high-rise office buildings, several selection criteria were established:
The research data were categorized into three main groups:
For inferential analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analysis were performed using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method implemented in LISREL 10.2 software. To evaluate sample adequacy and parameter ratio validity, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were applied. Parameters with KMO values greater than 0.6 and Bartlett’s test significance at the 95% confidence level or higher [Howard, 2016] were included in the factor analysis.
Findings
The predominant layout of the studied office environments included three main configurations: private offices, shared rooms accommodating up to five employees (the most common type), and open-plan layouts without partition walls, where workstations were separated only by office furniture.
The analysis revealed significant differences among the three examined buildings of Shahkaram, Parmida, and Razi Towers in terms of various environmental and spatial factors influencing employee productivity. Natural light, temperature, ergonomics, noise and acoustic comfort, cleanliness, privacy, security, and workspace dimensions were among the most influential parameters. In particular, natural light, temperature control, ergonomic furniture, and acoustic quality exhibited statistically significant effects on perceived comfort and efficiency.
Regarding spatial organization, differences in visual access, connectivity, and depth within interior layouts were found to have a direct relationship with employees’ perceived productivity. Internal integration, spatial depth, and connectivity at the local and global scales were key indicators in assessing how spatial configuration affected work performance.
Overall, the analysis demonstrated that all five main factors of comfort, layout, interaction, concentration, and spatial structure had statistically significant effects on human productivity in office buildings. The standardized path coefficients for these parameters were 0.464 for comfort, 0.393 for layout, 0.110 for interaction, 0.188 for concentration, and 0.216 for spatial structure.
Among the comfort-related parameters, natural light was identified as the most influential factor in enhancing productivity. Within the layout dimension, spatial proportions and ergonomic arrangements played the most critical roles. Equipment availability was the most significant interaction-related parameter, while acoustic quality was the dominant factor in the concentration dimension. Regarding spatial structure, internal integration showed the strongest effect on productivity, followed by spatial depth and global integration.
In summary, the findings suggest that optimizing environmental comfort, spatial layout, and structural configuration collectively contributes to higher levels of employee productivity in high-rise office buildings. The study highlights the importance of designing workspaces that balance functional efficiency with spatial and environmental quality to foster more productive and comfortable work environments.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of spatial configuration in office buildings in Karaj at both internal and external scales on employee productivity, and to compare these effects with the physical factors proposed in Haynes’ model [Haynes, 2008]. The findings revealed that most of the factors in Haynes’ model were significantly correlated with employee productivity in the examined office buildings; however, the model was not entirely comprehensive. Specifically, some parameters in Haynes’ framework, such as desk type, meeting areas, personal lockers, and overall atmosphere, did not show significant relationships, whereas other influential parameters, namely view, spatial structure, natural elements, and urban location were identified in this study but are not included in Haynes’ model.
Comparing the findings with existing conceptual frameworks indicated the greatest consistency with the model proposed by Vischer and WiFi [Vischer & WiFi, 2017], which itself is an extension of Vischer’s earlier model [Vischer, 2007]. The categorization of sub-parameters demonstrated that environmental comfort factors aligned with the findings of Haynes as well as those reported by Al Horr et al. [2016], Sun et al. [2019], and Thach et al. [2019]. Among environmental factors, the most influential parameters, with statistical coefficients above 0.9, were temperature and ventilation, noise and acoustics, lighting, spatial dimensions, and ergonomics.
At the next levels of Haynes’ model, layout, interaction, and concentration, three factors were of particular importance: public spaces, spatial arrangement, and biophilic design. Regarding public spaces, the results of this study contrasted with those of Laing et al. [1998] and Bisadi et al. [2013], where this parameter are not identified as a major factor influencing interaction. Similarly, its importance was only marginally reflected in Vischer’s framework.
The analysis of layout parameters showed that workspace plan design and its dependent parameters play a vital role in defining the quality of the indoor environment as a determinant of employee productivity. The physical configuration of offices influences the level and type of interaction among employees. This finding is consistent with both national [Bisadi et al., 2013; Tabe-Afshar et al., 2022] and international studies [Aries et al., 2010; Seddigh et al., 2025], though with some differences. Bisadi identifies five parameters of privacy, aesthetics, spatial diversity, flexibility, and adjacency as factors that enhance creativity, motivation, and tranquility indirectly, whereas the current study found direct relationships between these parameters and productivity. Other domestic and international studies have similarly reported direct correlations.
Privacy, security, interaction, and sense of ownership in shared or collective spaces can facilitate conditions that enhance productivity. In certain work tasks, privacy improves concentration and thus productivity, while in others that require teamwork, interaction is not perceived as disruptive but rather as a motivational factor for job satisfaction. This duality aligns with spatial integration and depth analyses and is consistent with the findings of Nubani [2018] and Permana et al. [2021]. Permana et al. have demonstrated that internal spatial integration correlates with monitoring and performance, while Nubani shows that integration influences interaction in office environments. However, Bisadi et al. [2013] confirm this relationship only within public spaces. Therefore, the impact of internal integration on promoting interaction is supported across all work groups, though the mechanism through which increased interaction translates into higher productivity requires further research.
Overall, the spatial structure of office interiors should provide a balance between two seemingly opposing qualities: Interaction and privacy. Spaces with high privacy and isolation are essential for tasks requiring focus, whereas highly integrated spaces are necessary for fostering collaboration. In small offices, situating public or shared spaces adjacent to circulation zones can be an effective strategy to achieve this balance.
At the urban scale, the spatial configuration analyses revealed an inverse relationship between the “immediate context” and the “urban network” domains. Specifically, high integration of main streets adjacent to office buildings at the city scale had a positive relationship with employee productivity, while at the local level, greater spatial depth correlated positively with productivity. The role of integration in the urban structure was directly linked to accessibility, a finding consistent with Al Horr et al. [2016]. According to Li et al. [2017], integration also has a significant relationship with urban service development; hence, increased integration through improved urban services can potentially enhance workforce productivity.
The main limitation of this study was the use of self-reporting methods to measure employee productivity, which could influence some of the results. For instance, this study confirmed the positive impact of natural and green elements on productivity, a finding consistent with most previous research. However, Thatcher et al. [2016] have reported evidence of reduced objective productivity but increased self-reported productivity in the presence of plants. Therefore, future studies should employ objective productivity assessment methods alongside self-report instruments to obtain more accurate and comprehensive results.
Conclusion
In work environments, physical factors play a crucial role in influencing employee productivity, regardless of the specific work pattern. The internal spatial configuration is significantly related to both employee interaction and concentration, although the nature of this relationship varies depending on the work pattern and organizational context. At the urban scale, spatial integration exhibits a weak but positive correlation with productivity, suggesting that accessibility and the overall spatial coherence of office buildings within the city network can subtly contribute to enhancing employee performance.
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None declared by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Fathi M (First Author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer (60%); Sajjadzadeh H (Second Author), Methodologist/Discussion Writer (40%); Moini M (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Principles of Workplace Architecture with an Approach to Enhancing Productivity Based on Environmental Affordance Theory”, supervised by the second and third authors at the Islamic Azad University, Boroujerd Branch.
The primary objective of workplaces is to provide an environment where employees can perform their tasks in the best possible manner. The same work may yield different outcomes in two distinct contexts; therefore, the work environment must be designed and adapted to promote desirable behaviors. The first step in this process is to identify the key factors that influence productivity in workplaces. Understanding the environmental factors affecting employee productivity requires a thorough understanding of work patterns within office environments. Recent studies have generally classified work patterns into four main categories. This categorization, derived from the comparison of buildings and spatial systems compatible with employees’ work patterns, provides a framework for distinguishing the influence of environmental factors on workers.
Research on the influence of the physical environment on job performance began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s, which examined the effects of lighting on production. In the following decades, studies focused on laboratory-based methods until the 1990s, when attention turned to the diversity and characteristics of work itself. One of the pioneers of this approach was Sundstrom, who organized his studies around five job types: Clerical, machine, mental, control, and dyadic [Andrew, 2008].
At the turn of the 21st century, the trajectory of workplace studies shifted toward understanding the relationship between environment and work patterns. The conceptualization of work patterns in the New Environments for Working research project in the UK [Laing et al., 1998] has continued to shape this field. That study focused on two main parameters, interaction and autonomy, and their relationship with spatial structure. The results indicated that organizations are transitioning from individual, centralized, and independent work modes toward more interactive, creative, and knowledge-based practices with increasingly complex spatial organizations. Consequently, the move from traditional (cellular) office environments to a hybrid of individual workspaces, meeting areas, and shared spaces (public zones) has become necessary [Davis et al., 2011]. This highlights the need for broader studies encompassing both the internal and external spatial structure of buildings. However, earlier research tended to focus on fragmented and isolated parameters and often lacked a clear definition of productivity.
Labor productivity refers to performing specific tasks according to predefined standards efficiently, accurately, and at minimal cost. In other words, human productivity measures the effectiveness and efficiency of an employee or a group of employees [Seyednaghavi et al., 2018:14]. In modern office environments, assessing the influence of environmental factors on employees is a challenging issue, as defining clear inputs and outputs is difficult [Haynes et al., 2017:112]. Although there is no universally accepted method for measuring productivity in office spaces, self-reported productivity measures appear to be the most suitable approach in such contexts [Azizi & Tazikeh Lemski, 2020].
To consolidate previous research findings and provide a comprehensive framework, Haynes and Vischer introduced new concepts based on self-reported productivity assessment through extensive studies and literature review. Haynes conducted a large-scale study on 1,418 British office workers, resulting in 25 indicators grouped under four main parameters: Comfort, motivation, interaction, and concentration. Meanwhile, Vischer proposed the Environmental Comfort Pyramid, consisting of four levels: physical comfort, functional comfort, psychological comfort, and environmental support [Haynes, 2008; Haynes et al., 2017; Vischer, 2008; Vischer & Wifi, 2017].
In Haynes’s model, the comfort level encompasses physical parameters such as ventilation, temperature, lighting, acoustics, cleanliness, safety, and furniture. Among these, four factors of thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, and air quality are generally recognized as the most influential in office worker performance [Choi et al., 2017; Haddadzadegan et al., 2022]. Samani and Rasid have demonstrated that the physical factors most closely associated with workplace creativity include ergonomics and environmental attributes such as noise, ventilation, the presence of plants, and windows [Samani & Rasid, 2014].
Regarding lighting, Golmohammadi et al. and Ghanbaran et al. have identified insufficient lighting sources and reliance on fluorescent lamps as key contributors to poor lighting quality. They suggested improving environmental quality by considering natural light, views, and visual access [Ghanbaran et al., 2018; Golmohammadi et al., 2020]. In recent years, research has emphasized the necessity of natural ventilation adapted to the climatic conditions of each region to enhance employee performance [Barbadilla-Martín et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017; Vakilinezhad & Shaeri, 2020]. Continuous exposure to noise disrupts cognitive performance; thus, acoustic conditions significantly affect employee productivity [Singh et al., 2010].
At a higher (functional) level, research has primarily focused on the comparison between open-plan and enclosed office layouts from various perspectives. For instance, Shahzad et al. found that enclosed offices, with greater user control, offered 35% higher satisfaction and 20% greater comfort compared to open-plan offices with limited control [Shahzad et al., 2017]. Seddigh et al. have shown in Sweden that office size correlates with layout configuration, with larger open-plan offices associated with greater performance decline compared to smaller ones [Seddigh et al., 2015]. While these studies have explored the strengths and weaknesses of different layouts, few have examined the spatial configuration of office environments independent of the open/closed plan dichotomy.
In addition to the factors identified by Haynes, other components influence workplace performance, such as greenery, views, urban location, and spatial configuration, which were not addressed in his model. For example, it is now well established that the presence of plants and green spaces is positively correlated with reduced stress, increased productivity, and greater employee satisfaction [Gray & Birrell, 2014]. Similarly, having outdoor views, particularly of natural settings, has positive effects [Allan et al., 2014]. The internal spatial configuration of buildings can also enhance employee productivity [Nubani, 2018; Permana et al., 2021], while urban location and accessibility likewise play a significant role [Al Horr et al., 2016].
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of spatial configuration in high-rise office buildings in Karaj, at both internal and external scales, on employee productivity, and to compare these effects with the physical factors identified in Haynes’s model.
Methodology
This descriptive study was conducted in the city of Karaj during the summer and autumn of 2022. To ensure a comprehensive examination of high-rise office buildings, several selection criteria were established:
- The buildings had to have been introduced and analyzed in reputable architectural databases;
- They had to be classified as high-rise buildings according to Article 4 of the Iranian National Building Regulations; and
- They had to represent diverse functional uses.
The research data were categorized into three main groups:
- Environmental parameters:
- Employee productivity assessment:
- Spatial structure data:
For inferential analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analysis were performed using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method implemented in LISREL 10.2 software. To evaluate sample adequacy and parameter ratio validity, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were applied. Parameters with KMO values greater than 0.6 and Bartlett’s test significance at the 95% confidence level or higher [Howard, 2016] were included in the factor analysis.
Findings
The predominant layout of the studied office environments included three main configurations: private offices, shared rooms accommodating up to five employees (the most common type), and open-plan layouts without partition walls, where workstations were separated only by office furniture.
The analysis revealed significant differences among the three examined buildings of Shahkaram, Parmida, and Razi Towers in terms of various environmental and spatial factors influencing employee productivity. Natural light, temperature, ergonomics, noise and acoustic comfort, cleanliness, privacy, security, and workspace dimensions were among the most influential parameters. In particular, natural light, temperature control, ergonomic furniture, and acoustic quality exhibited statistically significant effects on perceived comfort and efficiency.
Regarding spatial organization, differences in visual access, connectivity, and depth within interior layouts were found to have a direct relationship with employees’ perceived productivity. Internal integration, spatial depth, and connectivity at the local and global scales were key indicators in assessing how spatial configuration affected work performance.
Overall, the analysis demonstrated that all five main factors of comfort, layout, interaction, concentration, and spatial structure had statistically significant effects on human productivity in office buildings. The standardized path coefficients for these parameters were 0.464 for comfort, 0.393 for layout, 0.110 for interaction, 0.188 for concentration, and 0.216 for spatial structure.
Among the comfort-related parameters, natural light was identified as the most influential factor in enhancing productivity. Within the layout dimension, spatial proportions and ergonomic arrangements played the most critical roles. Equipment availability was the most significant interaction-related parameter, while acoustic quality was the dominant factor in the concentration dimension. Regarding spatial structure, internal integration showed the strongest effect on productivity, followed by spatial depth and global integration.
In summary, the findings suggest that optimizing environmental comfort, spatial layout, and structural configuration collectively contributes to higher levels of employee productivity in high-rise office buildings. The study highlights the importance of designing workspaces that balance functional efficiency with spatial and environmental quality to foster more productive and comfortable work environments.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of spatial configuration in office buildings in Karaj at both internal and external scales on employee productivity, and to compare these effects with the physical factors proposed in Haynes’ model [Haynes, 2008]. The findings revealed that most of the factors in Haynes’ model were significantly correlated with employee productivity in the examined office buildings; however, the model was not entirely comprehensive. Specifically, some parameters in Haynes’ framework, such as desk type, meeting areas, personal lockers, and overall atmosphere, did not show significant relationships, whereas other influential parameters, namely view, spatial structure, natural elements, and urban location were identified in this study but are not included in Haynes’ model.
Comparing the findings with existing conceptual frameworks indicated the greatest consistency with the model proposed by Vischer and WiFi [Vischer & WiFi, 2017], which itself is an extension of Vischer’s earlier model [Vischer, 2007]. The categorization of sub-parameters demonstrated that environmental comfort factors aligned with the findings of Haynes as well as those reported by Al Horr et al. [2016], Sun et al. [2019], and Thach et al. [2019]. Among environmental factors, the most influential parameters, with statistical coefficients above 0.9, were temperature and ventilation, noise and acoustics, lighting, spatial dimensions, and ergonomics.
At the next levels of Haynes’ model, layout, interaction, and concentration, three factors were of particular importance: public spaces, spatial arrangement, and biophilic design. Regarding public spaces, the results of this study contrasted with those of Laing et al. [1998] and Bisadi et al. [2013], where this parameter are not identified as a major factor influencing interaction. Similarly, its importance was only marginally reflected in Vischer’s framework.
The analysis of layout parameters showed that workspace plan design and its dependent parameters play a vital role in defining the quality of the indoor environment as a determinant of employee productivity. The physical configuration of offices influences the level and type of interaction among employees. This finding is consistent with both national [Bisadi et al., 2013; Tabe-Afshar et al., 2022] and international studies [Aries et al., 2010; Seddigh et al., 2025], though with some differences. Bisadi identifies five parameters of privacy, aesthetics, spatial diversity, flexibility, and adjacency as factors that enhance creativity, motivation, and tranquility indirectly, whereas the current study found direct relationships between these parameters and productivity. Other domestic and international studies have similarly reported direct correlations.
Privacy, security, interaction, and sense of ownership in shared or collective spaces can facilitate conditions that enhance productivity. In certain work tasks, privacy improves concentration and thus productivity, while in others that require teamwork, interaction is not perceived as disruptive but rather as a motivational factor for job satisfaction. This duality aligns with spatial integration and depth analyses and is consistent with the findings of Nubani [2018] and Permana et al. [2021]. Permana et al. have demonstrated that internal spatial integration correlates with monitoring and performance, while Nubani shows that integration influences interaction in office environments. However, Bisadi et al. [2013] confirm this relationship only within public spaces. Therefore, the impact of internal integration on promoting interaction is supported across all work groups, though the mechanism through which increased interaction translates into higher productivity requires further research.
Overall, the spatial structure of office interiors should provide a balance between two seemingly opposing qualities: Interaction and privacy. Spaces with high privacy and isolation are essential for tasks requiring focus, whereas highly integrated spaces are necessary for fostering collaboration. In small offices, situating public or shared spaces adjacent to circulation zones can be an effective strategy to achieve this balance.
At the urban scale, the spatial configuration analyses revealed an inverse relationship between the “immediate context” and the “urban network” domains. Specifically, high integration of main streets adjacent to office buildings at the city scale had a positive relationship with employee productivity, while at the local level, greater spatial depth correlated positively with productivity. The role of integration in the urban structure was directly linked to accessibility, a finding consistent with Al Horr et al. [2016]. According to Li et al. [2017], integration also has a significant relationship with urban service development; hence, increased integration through improved urban services can potentially enhance workforce productivity.
The main limitation of this study was the use of self-reporting methods to measure employee productivity, which could influence some of the results. For instance, this study confirmed the positive impact of natural and green elements on productivity, a finding consistent with most previous research. However, Thatcher et al. [2016] have reported evidence of reduced objective productivity but increased self-reported productivity in the presence of plants. Therefore, future studies should employ objective productivity assessment methods alongside self-report instruments to obtain more accurate and comprehensive results.
Conclusion
In work environments, physical factors play a crucial role in influencing employee productivity, regardless of the specific work pattern. The internal spatial configuration is significantly related to both employee interaction and concentration, although the nature of this relationship varies depending on the work pattern and organizational context. At the urban scale, spatial integration exhibits a weak but positive correlation with productivity, suggesting that accessibility and the overall spatial coherence of office buildings within the city network can subtly contribute to enhancing employee performance.
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None declared by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Fathi M (First Author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer (60%); Sajjadzadeh H (Second Author), Methodologist/Discussion Writer (40%); Moini M (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Principles of Workplace Architecture with an Approach to Enhancing Productivity Based on Environmental Affordance Theory”, supervised by the second and third authors at the Islamic Azad University, Boroujerd Branch.
Keywords:
References
1. Andrew Mc, Francis T (2008). Environmental psychology. Mahmoudi Gh, translator. Tehran: Vaniya Publishing. [Link]
2. Al Horr Y, Arif M, Kaushik A, Mazroei A, Katafygiotou M, Elsarrag E (2016). Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building And Environment. 105:369-389. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001]
3. Allan BA, Autin KL, Duffy R (2014). Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of working framework. Journal of Career Assessment. 22(4):543-561. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1069072713514811]
4. Aries MB, Veitch JA, Newsham GR (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(4):533-541. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.004]
5. Azizi H, Tazikeh Lemski I (2020). The effect of environmental factors on staff productivity in office space; Case study: Information technology companies of Iran. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development. 12(29):113-124. [Persian] [Link]
6. Barbadilla-Martín E, Lissen JMS., Guadix Martín JG Aparicio-Ruiz P, Brotas L (2017). Field study on adaptive thermal comfort in mixed mode office buildings in southwestern area Of Spain. Building And Environment. 123:163-175. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.042]
7. Bisadi M, Mozafar F, Hosseini B (2013). Spatial aspects of public areas affecting the researchers creativity and innovation in an architecture and urban design research center print. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ). 7(2):137-147. [Persian] [Link]
8. Choi JH, Moon J (2017). Impacts of human and spatial factors on user satisfaction in office environments. Building And Environment. 114:23-35. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.003]
9. Davis MC, Leach DJ, Clegg CW (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 27:193-237. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9781119992592.ch6]
10. Dettlaff W (2014). Space syntax analysis-methodology of understanding the space. PhD Interdisciplinary Journal. 1:283-291. [Link]
11. Ghanbaran A, Ebrahimpour R, Payedar Ardakani P, Tohidi Moghadam M (2018) The role of lighting, window views and indoor plants on stress reduction of offices' staffs by psychophysics method. Iran Occupational Health. 14(6):135-147. [Persian] [Link]
12. Golmohammadi R, Pirmoradi Z, Motamedzade M, Faradmal J (2020) assessing lighting and color temperature in the office workplaces and relationship to visual comfort. Iran Occupational Health. 17(1):1-10. [Persian] [Link]
13. Gray T, Birrell C (2014). Are biophilic-designed site office buildings linked to health benefits and high performing occupants? International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health. 11(12):12204-12222. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph111212204]
14. Haddadzadegan H, Zamardian ZS, Tahsildoost M, Jami S (2022). Evaluation of the impact of environmental factors on the satisfaction of the patient and the patient's companion in the rest rooms of Tehran hospitals. Architecture and Urban Planning of Iran. 12(1):251-264. [Persian] [Link]
15. Haynes BP (2008). Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journal Of Corporate Real Estate. 10(4):286-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14630010810925145]
16. Haynes BP (2009). Research design for the measurement of perceived office productivity. Intelligent Buildings International. 1(3):169-183. [Link] [DOI:10.3763/inbi.2009.0014]
17. Haynes BP, Suckley L, Nunnington N (2017). Workplace productivity and office type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 19(2):111-138. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/JCRE-11-2016-0037]
18. Hoboubi N, Choobineh A, Ghanavati FK, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA (2017). The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian petrochemical industry. Safety and Health at Work. 8(1): 67-71. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2016.07.002]
19. Howard MC (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What We are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 32(1):51-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664]
20. Klarqvist B (2015). A space syntax glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning. 6(2):1-10. [Link]
21. Laing A, Duffy F, Jaunzens D, Willis S (1998). New environments for working: The re-design of offices and environmental systems for new ways of working, London: Construction Research Communications Ltd. [Link]
22. Li X, Lv Z, Zheng Z, Zhong C, Hijazi IH, Cheng S (2017). Assessment of lively street network based on geographic information system and space syntax. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 76:17801-17819. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11042-015-3095-2]
23. Nubani LN (2018). Evaluating workplace constructs using computerized techniques of space syntax. Building Performance Evaluation. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-56862-1_11]
24. Permana AY, Nurrahman H, Permana AFS (2021). Systematic assessment with "poe" method in office buildings case study on the redesign results of office interior after occupied and operated. Journal of Applied Engineering Science. 19(2):448-465. [Link] [DOI:10.5937/jaes0-28072]
25. Samani SA, Rasid SZB (2014). A workplace to support creativity. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems. 13(4):414-420. [Link] [DOI:10.7232/iems.2014.13.4.414]
26. Seddigh A, Stenfors C, Berntsson E, Bååth R, Sikström S, Westerlund H (2015). The association between office design and performance on demanding cognitive tasks. Journal Of Environmental Psychology. 42:172-181. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.001]
27. Seyednaghavi M, Ghorbanizadeh V, Ghorbani Paji A (2018). The relationship between conflict management styles with human resource productivity in Sina bank. The Journal of Productivity Management. 11(4(43)):7-44. [Persian] [Link]
28. Shahzad S, Brennan J, Theodossopoulos D, Hughes B, Calautit JK (2017). Energy and comfort in contemporary open plan and traditional personal offices. Applied Energy. 185:1542-1555. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100]
29. Singh A, Syal M, Grady SC, Korkmaz S (2010) Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. American Journal of Public Health. 100(9):1665-166. [Link] [DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2009.180687]
30. Singh MK, Ooka R, Rijal H, Takasu M (2017). Adaptive thermal comfort in the offices of north-east India in autumn season. Building And Environment. 124:14-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.037]
31. Sun Y, Hou J, Cheng R, Sheng Y, Zhang X, Sundell J (2019). Indoor air quality, ventilation and their associations with sick building syndrome in Chinese homes. Energy and Buildings. 197:112-119. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.046]
32. Tabe-Afshar S, Toofan S, Saghafi-Asl A (2022) Studying the role of workplaces layout on employees health: Sick building syndrome. Iranian Journnal of Ergonomics. 9(4):199-210. [Persian] [Link]
33. Thach TQ, Mahirah D, Dunleavy G, Nazeha N, Zhang Y, Tan CEH, et al (2019). Prevalence of sick building syndrome and its association with perceived indoor environmental quality in an Asian multi-ethnic working population. Building And Environment. 166:106420. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106420]
34. Thatcher A, Adamson K, Bloch L, Kalantzis A (2020). do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? divergent results from laboratory and field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 71:101487. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101487]
35. Vakilinezhad R, Shaeri J (2020). Evaluation of thermal comfort zone in naturally ventilated offices in Bushehr. Hoviatshahr. 14(4):61-72. [Persian] [Link]
36. Vischer JC (2007). The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. California Management Review. 49(2):62-79. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/41166383]
37. Vischer JC, Wifi M (2017). The effect of workplace design on quality of life at work. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_21]
38. Vischer JC (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review. 51(2):97-108. [Link] [DOI:10.3763/asre.2008.5114]